I heard Mr. GinormousHead Russert say on Today this morning that

[valerief]

if Congress doesn't fund Bush's request "for the troops," then Congress would be "shutting down the government."

How does not funding the troops translate to shutting down the government?

(Pardon my ignorance.)

[alfredo]

1. If they don't shut down the government, we should shut down

the country.


What he means by shutting down the government is nothing gets done until we get our way on Iraq.

[rodeodance]

4. I say bring it on-------get peoples attention for this IMMORALITY

[valerief]

5. Oh, thanks. It's not a procedural thing but a strategy. I see. nt

[alfredo]

18. that's it. Nothing gets done until bush surrenders to reality.

[PatSeg]

20. "Surrenders to reality"???

Bush never surrenders! He has God on his side.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. Then reality will have to take him by force.

[alfredo]

25. It might take us going to the streets protesting in great numbers.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. I hear he doesn't listen to 'focus groups'

[alfredo]

29. He seems not to listen to anyone that isn't saying what he wants to hear.

[alfredo]

24. He won't but if enough votes are secured, he will have no choice.

[GeorgeGist]

2. You are pardoned ...

for giving Mr. Ridiculous a second thought.

[valerief]

7. A lapse of judgment on my part. nt

[Bumblebee]

3. Because it's part of a larger appropriation bill.

It's all or nothing. They can -- and will -- try to amend it in some ways but do not have enough votes to counter a filibuster. So their only option is not to bring the bill up for a vote, and that will shut the government. That's my understanding.

[valerief]

6. Ah, of course. Thanks. God forbid they break up such a bill. nt

[Bumblebee]

9. I just added to my response -- I don't think at this point they

can have a free-standing bill just on troops but I may be wrong.

[jmp]

30. Of course they can.

They are the freakin majority. They get to set the agenda.

[global1]

11. What If The Dems Tie The Money To Timed Troop Reductions .....

that would be the only way * would get his money. If he choses to veto the bill based on that - in effect he is shutting down the government and not the Dems. They need to spin it that way.

[valerief]

14. It's those Rethuglicans in Congress that muck things up. nt

[dragonlady]

16. That's what John Edwards has been saying for quite a while n/t

[redqueen]

8. Well Newt shut it down cause he got his widduw feewins hurt...

so fuck the whores and their clamors for complicity.

Shut the fucker down. No more dancing to bush's tune. The public wants deadlines, so tie the funding to deadlines. It's the LEAST they can do.

[valerief]

10. Yeah, Congress can say they want "Gingrich" the appropriations bill.

Might as well give credit (ahem) where credit is due.

[Demit]

12. Dey woodint wet him on da pwane wit da pwesident, wight?

Or he wanted the same size plane or something? A temper tantrum that furloughed government workers for days because he felt personally dissed. Unbelievable.

[redqueen]

19. Yup... he had to sit in the back!

Imagine how the insiders must have mocked him! :eyes:

[underpants]

13. "Call Russert" Matalin said

"He hates Mathews anyway" and they knew that Russert would simply repeat anything they told him

[Joe_VB]

15. "Ginormous"

I always wanted to know how to spell that word. Thank you valerief.

Joe

[valerief]

21. Sure, but it was a potshot guess. Giant + Enormous = Ginormous. nt

[Netbeavis]

17. how Russert has any cred left as a journalist after Scooter Libby is beyond me

[Skittles]

22. the man has no neck

his head rests on his shoulders

[CottonBear]

27. Dems should fund the troops and not the war. We need to get them out safely ASAP.

Funding the war and funding the troops are two separate items.

We need to follow Senator Biden's plan to redeploy the troops out of Iraq.

[MasonJar]

28. Good plan! Shut it down until Bush/Cheney resign.